Environmental question

[krill]

Motorcycles went though a similar rough patch in the late 70's when the EPA started getting really strict about emissions. There were simple, reliable, efficient slide type carbs that were unable to comply, so we got very finicky CV type cabs that were often less efficient and generally ran very lean. Everyone hated them. Once the kinks were worked out they worked better than slide carbs, but now carbs altogether have trouble complying, so it's forced more fuel injection. More fuel injection in bikes has lowered the cost, and now it's standard even on low end 250's.

 

Anyway, you asked what's more harmful, air pollutants or more carbon in the atmosphere (burning more fuel). In the immediate future emissions are a far greater threat to your health, and a burden on everyone with the massive expense of treating respiratory diseases that are caused by pollution. The EPA put the strict regulations in place to protect everyone's health and speed up innovations to lower emissions. In the short term it has been a sticky issue because of the added expense of emission treatment systems and / or lower efficiency caused by sub-optimal ignition timing. However, it's my understanding that Mazda (among others) has devised systems that can now meet regulations without additional emission equipment or lowering efficiency. The CX-5 diesel is already using this technology.

 

I think it's always fair to question regulatory burdens that seem to have a negative impact, but also consider whether manufacturers would voluntarily put money into R&D to lower emissions, or add expense to each vehicle if their competitors didn't have to. Then there's also the question of whether the goal, in this case lowering emissions is even being achieved, or whether ways to circumvent the regs are all that's being invented while costing consumers.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Motorcycles went though a similar rough patch in the late 70's when the EPA started getting really strict about emissions. There were simple, reliable, efficient slide type carbs that were unable to comply, so we got very finicky CV type cabs that were often less efficient and generally ran very lean. Everyone hated them. Once the kinks were worked out they worked better than slide carbs, but now carbs altogether have trouble complying, so it's forced more fuel injection. More fuel injection in bikes has lowered the cost, and now it's standard even on low end 250's.

 

Anyway, you asked what's more harmful, air pollutants or more carbon in the atmosphere (burning more fuel). In the immediate future emissions are a far greater threat to your health, and a burden on everyone with the massive expense of treating respiratory diseases that are caused by pollution. The EPA put the strict regulations in place to protect everyone's health and speed up innovations to lower emissions. In the short term it has been a sticky issue because of the added expense of emission treatment systems and / or lower efficiency caused by sub-optimal ignition timing. However, it's my understanding that Mazda (among others) has devised systems that can now meet regulations without additional emission equipment or lowering efficiency. The CX-5 diesel is already using this technology.

 

I think it's always fair to question regulatory burdens that seem to have a negative impact, but also consider whether manufacturers would voluntarily put money into R&D to lower emissions, or add expense to each vehicle if their competitors didn't have to. Then there's also the question of whether the goal, in this case lowering emissions is even being achieved, or whether ways to circumvent the regs are all that's being invented while costing consumers.

 

 

This is exactly right. Diesel trucks over 9000GVW were exempt from most pollution controls. They closed most of that loop hole, and went one step further in requiring the heavy particulate matter to be captured as well. This sapped power, and made for expensive emissions upgrades. The new Ford diesels have a tank you need to fill with water and ammonia, GM has something similar, but the Dodge Cummings passed the test without it, they use some sort of trap... The problem is all of them have the traps, in some form, we have 5 5500 Dodges, and those traps fill up quickly, if you dont drive down the road and keep them hot, the particulate matter collects and clogs it. We almost died in Ohio went the filter got completely blocked, and caused us to lose all power, while running at highway speeds.

 

This issue is so bad that the Dodges now have a sensor that automatically raises the RPM if you leave it in park for to long, this keeps enough heat in the trap. Our 5500s dont have that, we've had to put flanges on the pipe, we pull the element out, and when the sniff test is due, through it back in a few days before hand, this costs about $1000 per truck, although once done, you can pull the trap and clean it on your own.

[BigRedBuster]

Motorcycles went though a similar rough patch in the late 70's when the EPA started getting really strict about emissions. There were simple, reliable, efficient slide type carbs that were unable to comply, so we got very finicky CV type cabs that were often less efficient and generally ran very lean. Everyone hated them. Once the kinks were worked out they worked better than slide carbs, but now carbs altogether have trouble complying, so it's forced more fuel injection. More fuel injection in bikes has lowered the cost, and now it's standard even on low end 250's.

 

Anyway, you asked what's more harmful, air pollutants or more carbon in the atmosphere (burning more fuel). In the immediate future emissions are a far greater threat to your health, and a burden on everyone with the massive expense of treating respiratory diseases that are caused by pollution. The EPA put the strict regulations in place to protect everyone's health and speed up innovations to lower emissions. In the short term it has been a sticky issue because of the added expense of emission treatment systems and / or lower efficiency caused by sub-optimal ignition timing. However, it's my understanding that Mazda (among others) has devised systems that can now meet regulations without additional emission equipment or lowering efficiency. The CX-5 diesel is already using this technology.

 

I think it's always fair to question regulatory burdens that seem to have a negative impact, but also consider whether manufacturers would voluntarily put money into R&D to lower emissions, or add expense to each vehicle if their competitors didn't have to. Then there's also the question of whether the goal, in this case lowering emissions is even being achieved, or whether ways to circumvent the regs are all that's being invented while costing consumers.

 

 

This is exactly right. Diesel trucks over 9000GVW were exempt from most pollution controls. They closed most of that loop hole, and went one step further in requiring the heavy particulate matter to be captured as well. This sapped power, and made for expensive emissions upgrades. The new Ford diesels have a tank you need to fill with water and ammonia, GM has something similar, but the Dodge Cummings passed the test without it, they use some sort of trap... The problem is all of them have the traps, in some form, we have 5 5500 Dodges, and those traps fill up quickly, if you dont drive down the road and keep them hot, the particulate matter collects and clogs it. We almost died in Ohio went the filter got completely blocked, and caused us to lose all power, while running at highway speeds.

 

This issue is so bad that the Dodges now have a sensor that automatically raises the RPM if you leave it in park for to long, this keeps enough heat in the trap. Our 5500s dont have that, we've had to put flanges on the pipe, we pull the element out, and when the sniff test is due, through it back in a few days before hand, this costs about $1000 per truck, although once done, you can pull the trap and clean it on your own.

 

 

Funny, this was explained to me this morning. Basically, the new trucks are required to have this trap/filter on the exhaust. I had it explained to me that it is like putting 50 cocktail straws in your mouth and trying to blow out. The air is restricted and can get clogged very easily.

 

The Chevy trucks from 2008 through 2010 had this issue where if you don't keep them hot the exhaust clogs up. The urea additive is supposed to help this but it wasn't added till 2011.

 

What I am hearing that many guys are doing is once the warranty is gone, they are taking this mechanism off the trucks and chipping them.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Motorcycles went though a similar rough patch in the late 70's when the EPA started getting really strict about emissions. There were simple, reliable, efficient slide type carbs that were unable to comply, so we got very finicky CV type cabs that were often less efficient and generally ran very lean. Everyone hated them. Once the kinks were worked out they worked better than slide carbs, but now carbs altogether have trouble complying, so it's forced more fuel injection. More fuel injection in bikes has lowered the cost, and now it's standard even on low end 250's.

 

Anyway, you asked what's more harmful, air pollutants or more carbon in the atmosphere (burning more fuel). In the immediate future emissions are a far greater threat to your health, and a burden on everyone with the massive expense of treating respiratory diseases that are caused by pollution. The EPA put the strict regulations in place to protect everyone's health and speed up innovations to lower emissions. In the short term it has been a sticky issue because of the added expense of emission treatment systems and / or lower efficiency caused by sub-optimal ignition timing. However, it's my understanding that Mazda (among others) has devised systems that can now meet regulations without additional emission equipment or lowering efficiency. The CX-5 diesel is already using this technology.

 

I think it's always fair to question regulatory burdens that seem to have a negative impact, but also consider whether manufacturers would voluntarily put money into R&D to lower emissions, or add expense to each vehicle if their competitors didn't have to. Then there's also the question of whether the goal, in this case lowering emissions is even being achieved, or whether ways to circumvent the regs are all that's being invented while costing consumers.

 

 

This is exactly right. Diesel trucks over 9000GVW were exempt from most pollution controls. They closed most of that loop hole, and went one step further in requiring the heavy particulate matter to be captured as well. This sapped power, and made for expensive emissions upgrades. The new Ford diesels have a tank you need to fill with water and ammonia, GM has something similar, but the Dodge Cummings passed the test without it, they use some sort of trap... The problem is all of them have the traps, in some form, we have 5 5500 Dodges, and those traps fill up quickly, if you dont drive down the road and keep them hot, the particulate matter collects and clogs it. We almost died in Ohio went the filter got completely blocked, and caused us to lose all power, while running at highway speeds.

 

This issue is so bad that the Dodges now have a sensor that automatically raises the RPM if you leave it in park for to long, this keeps enough heat in the trap. Our 5500s dont have that, we've had to put flanges on the pipe, we pull the element out, and when the sniff test is due, through it back in a few days before hand, this costs about $1000 per truck, although once done, you can pull the trap and clean it on your own.

 

 

Funny, this was explained to me this morning. Basically, the new trucks are required to have this trap/filter on the exhaust. I had it explained to me that it is like putting 50 cocktail straws in your mouth and trying to blow out. The air is restricted and can get clogged very easily.

 

The Chevy trucks from 2008 through 2010 had this issue where if you don't keep them hot the exhaust clogs up. The urea additive is supposed to help this but it wasn't added till 2011.

 

What I am hearing that many guys are doing is once the warranty is gone, they are taking this mechanism off the trucks and chipping them.

 

Yeah there is an entire cottage industry on those traps. Our units are based in Texas, and they have to get a sniff test every few years. That is why we put the flanged joints on, pull the trap until we need it...